On September 14, direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will begin in Sharm El Sheikh, an Egyptian resort on the Red Sea coast, with the blessing of U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The talks broke off on December 27, 2008 after Israel launched Operation Cast Lead against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The operation, which lasted until January 21, 2009, killed an estimated 1,400 Palestinians.
The White House has hinted that Obama hopes a peace deal will be reached in the next 12 months. There is no alternative but to believe in this optimistic forecast because presidents a priori know what others don't.
Faith is probably the main factor in this process. It is impossible to explain the reasons for Obama's optimism. The Israeli government is currently headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, Chairman of the major center-right political party Likud, who has never been inclined to make concessions to Palestinians. Many Palestinians do not recognize Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and view him as an Israeli collaborationist.
Hamas activists are being arrested in the West Bank controlled by Abbas' forces, while Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, the second PNA sector. Such mutual antagonism implies that any quick consensus is out of the question.
On September 2, Hillary Clinton formally opened a summit in Washington for direct talks between Palestinian and Israeli leaders, saying the United States "cannot and will not impose a solution." Everyone was somewhat taken aback by this statement.
Skeptics, including an overwhelming majority of Middle East analysts, believe that neither Palestine, nor Israel will be able to throw off "the shackles of history" (to quote Clinton) and to reach a peace agreement without any semblance of stern admonition.
It is quite useful and appropriate to display optimism prior to start of the talks. This is like changing the oil in a car engine before a long journey. The maze of the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts contains so many abrasive "stones" that it is difficult to emerge unscathed from it.
Obama is keeping his campaign promise to work on the Middle East peace process, which was almost forgotten by his predecessor, George W. Bush, after the horrendous 9/11 attacks in New York City and Washington D. C. Obama's attitude is quite positive.
No matter what people say, the United States alone can push Israel toward a compromise. But any U.S. president should have enough political courage and/or substantial experience and a reputation as a peacekeeper to be able to pressure Israel. Unfortunately, Obama lacks both. A pro-Israeli lobby remains active in the United States, exerting an equally sobering influence on both the Democrats and the Republicans. Only a madman can afford to lose this relatively small electorate segment, which seriously influences all aspects of U.S. financial life.
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will now be held in Sharm El Sheikh. The Obama administration expects the parties to discuss security issues, non-aggression guarantees with regard to Israel, the recognition of Israel and the allocation of water resources and to prioritize border outlines. Obama thinks that Israel and Palestine should first demarcate their borders, and that subsequent negotiations would prove easier within this format. However, the subsequent direction of the peace process and its possible results remain unclear because the border issue is the most difficult problem.
Of particular concern is Netanyahu's failure to respond to calls to indefinitely extend a ten-month moratorium on building new Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which will expire in late September. Technically speaking, Netanyahu can do this without taking any major chances, so it is quite possible that he will agree. This may be the main trump card negotiated by Obama and Netanyahu in Washington in early September. But a moratorium does not imply a complete refusal.
There are some other more serious problems. Israeli sources say Netanyahu plans to ask the Palestine National Authority to unequivocally recognize Israel as a Jewish state. For Palestinians to recognize the State of Israel and to recognize Israel as a Jewish state are two different things. Analysts claim that the latter implies that Palestinians, who were forced to leave their land and were deprived of property after the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, will automatically have to renounce their restitution rights or compensations.
Although many U.S. presidents have tried to accomplish this difficult objective, none of them has made any headway to date. Obama should be particularly motivated to facilitate the Middle East peace settlement because he should make good on his Nobel Peace Prize received in December 2009 for his good intentions.
RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
